On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his admission among our github committers. We're starting with phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll extend write rights to dmd also.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrei

Woohoo! Congratulations Monarch!

eles, el 23 de July a las 15:25 me escribiste:
> On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his admission among our github committers. We're starting with phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll extend write rights to dmd also.
> 
> I would like to suggest granting dmd permissions too. From the beginning.
> 
> Dmd needs a lot of work and any helping hand could... help.
> 
> Any mistake that could go into dmd code could be easily reverted. This is why git exists.

You don't need push access to the blessed repository to contribute,
THAT's why git exists! Only people merging stuff needs push access and
is good to keep that team as small as possible (and if there is a review
bottleneck then it is too small and needs to be expanded). Right now,
fortunately, the lack of review doesn't seem to be a huge bottleneck,
and while having committed, smart people helping could be beneficial,
I think is wise not to give every contributor push access to the repo
right now.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey you, dont help them to bury the light
Don't give in without a fight.

On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his admission among our github committers. We're starting with phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll extend write rights to dmd also.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrei

Hooray! Nagging Andrei works! :P

On 7/23/13 8:27 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> You don't need push access to the blessed repository to contribute,
> THAT's why git exists! Only people merging stuff needs push access and
> is good to keep that team as small as possible (and if there is a review
> bottleneck then it is too small and needs to be expanded). Right now,
> fortunately, the lack of review doesn't seem to be a huge bottleneck,
> and while having committed, smart people helping could be beneficial,
> I think is wise not to give every contributor push access to the repo
> right now.

I'm very surprised by your outlook. My perception is that the long queue of pending pull requests not being reviewed is the single most important bottleneck at this point in history in the path of D. By my estimates I think we'd improve the speed of D's development by at least one third if we solve this one issue. There's no other issue offering so much impact.

I also think it may transform into a major crisis (an inflection point in pull requests rate followed by a decline) if we leave this unresolved.

We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast.


Andrei

Am 23.07.2013 21:23, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
> On 7/23/13 8:27 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> You don't need push access to the blessed repository to contribute,
>> THAT's why git exists! Only people merging stuff needs push access and
>> is good to keep that team as small as possible (and if there is a review
>> bottleneck then it is too small and needs to be expanded). Right now,
>> fortunately, the lack of review doesn't seem to be a huge bottleneck,
>> and while having committed, smart people helping could be beneficial,
>> I think is wise not to give every contributor push access to the repo
>> right now.
>
> I'm very surprised by your outlook. My perception is that the long queue
> of pending pull requests not being reviewed is the single most important
> bottleneck at this point in history in the path of D. By my estimates I
> think we'd improve the speed of D's development by at least one third if
> we solve this one issue. There's no other issue offering so much impact.
>
> I also think it may transform into a major crisis (an inflection point
> in pull requests rate followed by a decline) if we leave this unresolved.
>
> We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast.
>
>
> Andrei
>

what about something like an (linux) stage repository, more integrated pull request, more main repo aspirants

Andrei Alexandrescu, el 23 de July a las 12:23 me escribiste:
> On 7/23/13 8:27 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >You don't need push access to the blessed repository to contribute,
> >THAT's why git exists! Only people merging stuff needs push access and
> >is good to keep that team as small as possible (and if there is a review
> >bottleneck then it is too small and needs to be expanded). Right now,
> >fortunately, the lack of review doesn't seem to be a huge bottleneck,
> >and while having committed, smart people helping could be beneficial,
> >I think is wise not to give every contributor push access to the repo
> >right now.
> 
> I'm very surprised by your outlook. My perception is that the long queue of pending pull requests not being reviewed is the single most important bottleneck at this point in history in the path of D. By my estimates I think we'd improve the speed of D's development by at least one third if we solve this one issue. There's no other issue offering so much impact.

OK, I haven't been looking at the pull request queue lately so I might have written an uninformed opinion. But anyway, you don't need to give people push access for that, people can review patches without push access. People with push access can trust certain people and blindly merge pull request those people reviewed and approved. I think having to many hands merging stuff in one project will tend to chaos. Ideally some people should have a very good global idea of what's going on with the project, even when not reviewing every commit individually, you get an idea of what's going on by just looking at the commit messages in the pull request before merging.

This was my main point.

> I also think it may transform into a major crisis (an inflection point in pull requests rate followed by a decline) if we leave this unresolved.
> 
> We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast.

True, but giving more people push access is not necessarily the solution and there are other potential solutions.

In the Linux world usually there is only one "dictator" (push access)
for each repository, and he *blindly* merge stuff from "lieutenants"
(people he trust) [1]. That seems to scale pretty well.

[1] http://git-scm.com/book/en/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows#Dictator-and-Lieutenants-Workflow

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SATANAS EN COMISARIA
	-- Crónica TV

On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 19:24:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/23/13 8:27 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> You don't need push access to the blessed repository to contribute,
>> THAT's why git exists! Only people merging stuff needs push access and
>> is good to keep that team as small as possible (and if there is a review
>> bottleneck then it is too small and needs to be expanded). Right now,
>> fortunately, the lack of review doesn't seem to be a huge bottleneck,
>> and while having committed, smart people helping could be beneficial,
>> I think is wise not to give every contributor push access to the repo
>> right now.
>
> I'm very surprised by your outlook. My perception is that the long queue of pending pull requests not being reviewed is the single most important bottleneck at this point in history in the path of D.

Yes, but OTOH, I'd like to see more people who ONLY review Phobos requests, with the distraction of also handling DMD requests.

My impression is that Phobos requests currently take even longer to be merged, than DMD requests. (Far more DMD pull requests are generated than for Phobos, yet the queues are a similar length).


> By my estimates I think we'd improve the speed of D's development by at least one third if we solve this one issue. There's no other issue offering so much impact.

I agree.

> I also think it may transform into a major crisis (an inflection point in pull requests rate followed by a decline) if we leave this unresolved.

Yes. I suspect that may already apply to Phobos to some extent. Potentially there there should be many more contributors to Phobos than to DMD. But it has not happened so far.

> We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast.

There are still a couple of easy practical issues. The build time is still not quick enough, which means we have a last-in-first-out structure. When the top few pull requests are controversial or harder to review, they tend to clog the request queue.

The simplest immediate improvement we could do is add another FreeBSD box to the build farm. FreeBSD takes so long, and gives so many spurious failures, that we'd be currently be better off without it.

On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 at 19:24:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast.

What exactly is involved in reviewing pull requests? I'm pretty sure anybody can comment on anything in github so ordinary people, without commit access, could watch the feed and say something.

For the last week or two I haven't been on the irc channel, but when I am, i see the pull request notes go by on the chat and sometimes take a look at them, but rarely say anything.

But if we had a document with stuff to look out for, a checklist that any idiot can follow, then maybe the reviews could be done by me and other people who currently lack the authority, if you will, but who see those notifications in near real time and get a much faster response going.

And, of course, the authors could refer to it themselves too.

Anyway then when the committers are online, they just see a comment from someone, or maybe two someone's, but not necessary anybody in particular, saying "looks ok" and then they go ahead and merge it without further delay.


If such a document exists already btw it needs to be easier to find, either a link in the README or it could *be* the README.

Andrei Alexandrescu:

> We must find a solution to reviewing pull requests, and fast.

I agree. Maybe this could help:
http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/

Bye,
bearophile

On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 18:08:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Please join me in congratulating monarch dodra for his admission among our github committers. We're starting with phobos, druntime, and tools access, and if all goes well, we'll extend write rights to dmd also.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrei

Hey! Sorry it took me 4 days to discover the D announce thread. I must admit it wasn't one of the threads I looked over (although this will change starting today, lots of interesting articles here).

In any case, thank you everyone for your support and kind words :)

I don't think granting me dmd rights would be necessary, as I don't really know how the compiler works, and I mostly only contribute to phobos anyways (sometimes druntime).

I may in the future try to contribute to dmd itself, but I wouldn't ever pull anything in there myself anyways, so giving me pull rights (at this point) would be mostly pointless.

Well, here's to making D as best as it can be ^^